Fruits of Vatican II - The New Mass Part 7- A Priest's impression of the Tridentine Mass (spoiler: He didn't like it ...)

+

JMJ

In 2012, Fr. Peter Schineller attended a Tridentine Mass and ended his report with the following:

One thing I know: I myself will never freely choose to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

What I found interesting is the effect it had on Fr.

During the celebration I felt very uncomfortable. It was strange and foreign. Even though I was very familiar with the Tridentine Mass from my childhood, it seemed remote and distant. The Mass seemed to focus on the priest whose words for the most part could not be heard (they were in Latin anyway!) and who rarely faced the people. The choir performed well and their singing overrode the priest, who had to wait several times until they finished singing.

Obviously, the fact that the Mass focuses on the priest is, following Catholic Theology, a good thing.  He is after all, acting as priest offering the sacrifice.  Then he proceeds to contradict himself by stating that 'the choir ... overrode the priest'. 

As a Cantor, I can at least set your mind at rest. We have rules and guidelines and we are participating in the liturgy in a manner that Father appears unaware. As laity we are allowed to since elements of the Liturgy. Naturally the sung word takes longer than the spoken word, therefore necessitating that the Celebrant sometimes either waits for us to catchup or sits down.  Yet, all the while participating the liturgy as when we sing certain elements the priest bows. 

In my mind I could not but think back to the Second Vatican Council, and all that the Council and subsequent documents tried to bring about – active participation, emphasis on the important things, vernacular, elimination of accretions and repetitions, etc. It was sad and disheartening. What happened? Why would the Catholic faithful seek out and attend this older form of the Mass? Is the Tridentine Mass an aberration? What does it say about the reforms of Vatican II?

I find 'emphasis on the important things' particularly telling. I mean seriously, what is more important than the Sacrifice of the Mass?

After the Mass, I was tempted to talk with some of those present. But I decided not to as I feared I would have been negative and perhaps controversial. My feelings were still very raw.Source: America Magazine

My assessment of Father is that his is experiencing the Tridentine Mass from his cultural perspective or perhaps from that of a child as his familiarity is from his childhood.  His lack of comprehension of the elements of a fully integrated liturgy is understandable and regrettable.

With respect to the '... venacular, ... accretions and repetitions', I wish someone would explain why  repeating the glories of God, our state as sinners etc is a bad thing.

I would also like to know what were the accretions that were present in the Tridentine Mass as it was essentially the same as that codified by Pope Pius V.

The final proof that this was a cultural perspective that coloured Fathers impression is in the question he asks in the second paragrah.

Having attending the Tridentine Mass for 35 years, I can answer Father's questions:

• What happened? 
• A crisis erupted in the Church.
• Why would the Catholic faithful seek out and attend this older form of the Mass?
• Because it reflects everything that a Catholic Liturgy should!
• Is the Tridentine Mass an aberration?
• No, the Tridentine Mass is Catholic, it is the Novus Ordo Missae that is the aberration.
• What does it say about the reforms of Vatican II?
• They were not a reformation (return a previous pristine state removing accretions etc) but a deformation of Catholic Liturgy to reflect a deformed heretical theology.

Pray for Father Schineller and Catholics like him, they no longer recognise the Tridentine Mass as a Catholic Liturgy and worse: They are unable to recognize the Novus Ordo Missae as a protestantized Liturgy.

P^3